81mm vs 75mm

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Survivability is NOT the most important price consideration.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should hope not. But neither did I imply that it should be. I was talking about rating two classes of guns, one of which survives easily since the enemy cannot see it, the other which does not. And I was saying that this difference is important for price, in that the number of men used in the highly survivable type of gun matters little by comparison to the number of men in the type of gun which gets major abuse.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

[Guns are more effective than mortars]

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. All that this tells us, though, is that guns should cost more than mortars -- and generally they do. It tell us nothing about whether or not the same formula can successfully rate guns and mortars.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The fact of the matter is that mortars were more common on the battlefield than artillery. They made up a part of the standard infantry formation of every major nation in WWII. Artillery was very rarely organic to low level infantry formations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am aware of this. In fact, as I read it, the use of infantry guns was dropped over the course of WWII, exactly because mortars were better. This reality one would not learn from CM.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If we price them upwards we are basically screwing with historical reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think I have argued that mortars should be made more costly. To the contrary. I have asserted two things regarding cost-effectiveness of mortars:

(a) 76mm are incredible bargains, way out of line with other mortars

( CM mortars, for the price, suck. They are only cost-effective for one, very specific role: taking out enemy guns.

So what do I think you should do? Here are two options:

(1) Special case the 76mm to make it more expensive. This is the least resonant change, but also the kludgiest.

(2) Reduce all mortars except 76mm in price somewhat. This should be performed in a clean, systematic way -- make a formula for mortars, similar to that for guns, but which weights ammo more, crew size less, and tacks on some sort percentage surcharge for the ability to do indirect.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

I think you are overrating mortars, or are at least not keeping them in the larger context of the game itself. We are not going to screw with this system of pricing in any fundamental way. It works, and it works well. Not perfect, but I also do not agree that it is broken to the extent that major reworking is necessary. And that is, in fact, what you are asking for.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Changing one price is not major reworking. Changing the formula for mortars would end up changing the prices of all mortars, which is about, what, 6 units? That's not really very major either.

Now, changing all the prices of things that I think are mispriced -- that would be a major undertaking. That's an interesting thing to talk about, but really I see no reason (nor hope) of trying to discuss stuff like prices for hetzers, if we cannot even agree on something that seems as evidently out of whack as the price for the 76mm. In other words, why bother to discuss the relatively small things when we cannot even agree on the large things?

[Wreck]

Steve, I must confess my frustration here. Even though you have assigned specific values to every unit in the game, you argue in essence that it cannot be done. There is no representative force/map/situation/etc, or set thereof, you argue. Therefore any experience I have, or anyone else has for that matter, is immaterial to the prices.

So how could I possibly ever convince you that any price in CM is wrong?

And yet... some of them are. I feel like the scientist here: "And yet... it moves!"

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff,

That was funny

Jarmo,

Well, it has only been a couple of months. I guess this topic is interesting enough to do a little bit with. However, I have a lot of Soviet vehicles line up waiting to get some attention, so I will disappear very soon

Wreck, second post first:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, I must confess my frustration here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe... you too?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even though you have assigned specific values to every unit in the game, you argue in essence that it cannot be done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I argue that it can not be done to everybody's satisfaction. In other words, no matter WHAT system we employ, someone will complain that a price is not fair, too much, too little, etc. We have a scientific system, but it is based on opinions and gut feelings since there is no such thing as "real value".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no representative force/map/situation/etc, or set thereof, you argue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. There is none. None in the sense of being able to create a system less imperfect than the one we use now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore any experience I have, or anyone else has for that matter, is immaterial to the prices.

So how could I possibly ever convince you that any price in CM is wrong? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, we have changed prices of some things in the past. This means someone convinced us that change was necessary. So it is possible. But in this case we respectfully disagree with the request.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And yet... some of them are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect. You have an opinion that something is "wrong". You have made your case, I have made ours. You disagree with our presentation, we disagree with yours. So do not confuse this with arguning that we have the Stuart M5A1's lower frontal hull armor thickness wrong. One is a case of an opinion, the other is fact.

OK, first post now:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact, as I read it, the use of infantry guns was dropped over the course of WWII, exactly because mortars were better. This reality one would not learn from CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whaaaaaaa? Now you are arguing that because one mortar is not priced to your satisfaction that mortars are useless in the game? Excuse me if I don't buy that line of argument. Personally, I rather have a 81mm FO than a 105mm FO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't think I have argued that mortars should be made more costly.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you are apparently asking for them to be cheaper. The same design logic I outlined to you earlier applies just as much whether you are asking for an increase or decrease.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(a) 76mm are incredible bargains, way out of line with other mortars<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using your logic perhaps, but not using ours. Perhaps the price could be tweaked up a bit, but what difference do you think adding 10 points or so would make in terms of people's purchasing decisions?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>( CM mortars, for the price, suck. They are only cost-effective for one, very specific role: taking out enemy guns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I very strongly disagree. Mortars are my best friend in battle. I use them to GREAT effect. I take mortars over field guns (on or off map) every time.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(2) Reduce all mortars except 76mm in price somewhat. This should be performed in a clean, systematic way -- make a formula for mortars, similar to that for guns, but which weights ammo more, crew size less, and tacks on some sort percentage surcharge for the ability to do indirect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wreck, did you read anything I wrote in the last bunch of posts? We not only disagree with you that this is needed, we strongly disagree with your special casing approach. You can not tinker with mortar prices in a vacuum. Change one part of the system, change the whole system. Either or.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Changing one price is not major reworking. Changing the formula for mortars would end up changing the prices of all mortars, which is about, what, 6 units? That's not really very major either.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We don't know this, so how can you? Our experience tells us that you are wrong, though. Please reread my previous posts again. You are apparently missing the entire point about why we will NOT do any sort of special casing, subjective, change to the pricing model. End of story.

Again...

No system is perfect, and CM certainly doesn't break with this reality. You have aon OPINION that something needs to be changed, and we have an OPINION that change is not needed. Why must it be that we are wrong and you are right? We did design the whole game, did we not? We have listened to people's suggestions about how we can make it better for well over a year now, have we not? People seem to be doing just fine with the system as it is now, so we see no reason to screw with it. You are prescribing a cure for a problem that, in our opinion, does not exist.

Yeah, there is always a case that can be made for this or that thing to be more or less expensive, granted. We have changed prices in the past based on the arguments put forward. But in this case, we do not see the need for a change. And if we did make a change, it would be so minor that I honestly think it wouldn't make a hill of beans difference. If you think something is majorly wrong, then tweaking one value is not going to satisfy you. And that is OK, we don't expect everybody to be 100% happy with everything. It is an impossible goal so there should be no hard feelings and we should go away agreeing to disagree. But you should also go away knowing that you spoke yor mind, we heard you, and we responded back with our side. What more can you reasonably expect from us when we do NOT agree with your position? Cave in simply because you spent $45 a couple of months ago?

Honestly that is the only other alternative. We either stick to our beliefs (because we honestly believe in them), the same ones that made this game so great, or we make changes simply because someone complained longer and harder than someone else.

We are in an impossible situation, so this is the best we can do for you. Hopefully it is enough.

Steve

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Guest PondScum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I guess this topic is interesting enough to do a little bit with.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nooooo, please, go back and hack those Soviet vehicles. FASTER, dammit, FASTER

[JasonC]

First I will address the "it's all opinion" story. Price in general are opinions, and their origin subjective. But contrary to popular cliff-note philosophizing, a subjective origin of anything does not prevent knowledge about it, within limits. Practical life has invented ways of handling these things, and economics knows rather a lot about why they work. The rule used for price setting in practical life is called "making a market" in the presence of competition. If you examine why that tends to work, one finds the system has many useful characteristics for "price discovery", no matter how much all of it is about opinions.

Making a market means being willing to buy or to sell at (or very near) a stated price. Notice, someone saying "3" mortars should cost 1 point, because I am going to be British next time and will be buying lots", or "3" mortars should cost 100 points, because I'm the Germans this time", is not "making a market". All "special pleading" is evaporated by the obligation to take either side of the trade, and to let the other fellow decide which gives him more. "You cut, I choose", is a practical rule of justice about matters of opinion, and it works. When the advantages of item A relative to B, at given costs, in different terrain or a different force mix, lead people to sometimes buy As and sometimes Bs, then the "cut" between those two can be seen to be decent.

The second way practical life deals with "it's all opinion" is to make the continued making of a market, or setting of the price, dependent upon survival in the face of competition. Meaning, someone setting a price has to live with the side of the trade others choose to give him. If those others consistently win as a result of those trades with him, his price is not sustainable. Some trader sets the exchange rate of dollars vs. yen, making the dollar more valuable than others' mere opinions think it is. He winds up with a boatload of dollars, and others soon have all of his yen. It was just a difference of opinions, true. But it has a practical result.

Now, there is obviously no such linkage in a fixed price system for a game, like CM. But there is an analogy to it. If players that are allowed to cherry pick routinely get a better won-loss record against players that don't, and do so by chosing particular items (a side, an infantry type, this tank, those guns) then that is, on its face, evidence that the prices are skew. And it doesn't matter that these are "mere opinions". Thus, anyone maintaining that the prices are sound should have no objection to an opponent cherry-picking. The practical analogy would be the fellow that sets the prices giving his opponent choice of side, both allowed to pick their forces from the price-setters price list.

Incidentally, I already use my own prices for several items when balancing scenarios I design, and I suspect others do so as well. E.g. I often want to give a force a bunch of trucks, but I never make their side "pay" the full CM price for them in balance terms - I value them at next to nil for combat power balancing. I do something similar, but with reduced costs, for wire, bunkers, FTs, halftracks, moderately improved Shermans, etc. Most of these are cost reductions, rather than increases. As I have said previously, my problem with most price tweak issues is what they discourage or penalize, rather than what they encourage.

But outside of scenario design, perhaps tournaments or particular gentleman's-agreement games, that is ondoubtedly too cumbersome. So we rely on the third practical way of handling matters of "mere opinion" in practical life. This applies in markets in which buyers are "price-takers", as it is called. Meaning, no one makes a market, but buyers choose what to buy and refrain from items they think overpriced. Then feedback occurs about the soundness of the prices, to the price-setter, in the form of the volume of things chosen.

In the case of our little game, that feedback is something you hear about here - although you will also see a little of it in games that allow force picking. What items are common in such cases? Automatic weapon infantry, cheap light guns, infantry AT teams, AFVs with thick front armor and/or powerful AT armament, flame vehicles. What are avoided? Large point expenditures under "vehicles" for items without gun armament, especially unarmed trucks+jeeps and 1 MG "vanilla" halftracks, plain vanilla rifle armed infantry when other options exist, bunkers, infantry FTs, foot 50 cal teams, most on-map light mortars (but not 3"), AFVs with poor AT ability, mortar halftracks.

Which brings me to the last way that practical life deals with matters of "mere opinion" in pricing. It searches. It adapts. It does not pretend that one code promulgated initially will reflect values accurately, but neither does it pretend that values are not accurate or innaccurate merely because they are based on opinions. It does not expect a cessation of all trading as a result of a cessation of all disagreement about prices and therefore differences of opinion about values. But it does move prices in ways that reduce the amount of such disagreements. It corrects itself, and corrects its corrections. Practically life does not regard this exercise as "meaningless" or "futile" because it is "endless" or cannot become perfect, or because it is "harder than it sounds". It tweaks until there are people who prefer side A of a trade to B, and others who prefer side B to A, and large numbers of both.

Naturally, I do not expect BTS to be regularly releasing price-change patches. That would be silly, and would detract from time spent on CM2. But I do expect that price tweaks will be included when, from time to time, patches are released for other reasons, or in new versions of the game. If they aren't, then we will continue to use workarounds like computer picked forces, or using purely historical force mixes, or rules of 75/76, and switches of side (e.g. who gets the Germans, who have more bargains these days for various reasons).

And I for one will continue to use my own prices in scenario design, and will continue to suggest such modifications to this board, both for use by BTS and by willing players, by gentleman's agreement. And of course will consider any suggested price changes from others as well, on the same basis. Anyone willing to offer choice of side in return for his price revisions will get a respectful hearing from me, on the basis of the justice of "you cut, I choose". (The practical issues are easy - padded point totals and staying within them).

Now to the particular arguments put forth, and some concrete price suggestions.

"probably aren't playing densely wooded and hill maps" - actually, I usually do. I am simply more interested in the tactical problems created by ridges. Also, I like infantry fighting rather than AFV dominated fighting, and heavy woods is one way to get that. I do often use moderate rather than densely wooded (I use both), while I avoid the sparser vegetation settings (except in towns).

"this might make some weapons too expensive or two cheap in regards to a historical TO&E"

That is rariety. On that basis, Tiger Is are way too cheap. Shermans are way too expensive, especially moderately improved types.

Second, no one has suggested 90 point 3" mortars. 45 is more like it. At that price they would still provide vastly more blast potential per point than any other on-map mortar. But less than 2x, which is what I suggested before. The idea is not every price in line, which is not feasible. The idea is for the prices to mostly be in within 25-33% of "in line", for most items and reasonable force mixes, and to avoid situations greater than 2x for particular items.

"we have made price tweaks in the past. We will continue to refine things as we go along. But I honestly think there is a perception in this thread here that it is far easier to do this than it really is."

Indeed you have. And you will again, I suspect. As for the ease of doing it, I am not suggesting it is simplicity itself. But follow-on effects can be kept small simply by making moderate adjustments. E.g. the 3" mortar difference in total HE potential is ~2.5 times for the price. Allow that such ability is only part of what makes a mortar useful - since e.g. 2 put out not only 2x the rounds, but from 2 locations and faster, etc. So take a square root of the firepower potential, and get a price of 45-46. That nudges the price up 25%, and brings the potential blast per point down to 33.5, vs. 19 for the 81s, under 2x. If you like, only move it to 40 and it will be 2x the potential HE, but not more. You don't need to shoot for perfection; it is enough that the result be closer. Even an "overshooting" adjustment, if still closer, would be an improvement if the "overshoot" is less than the original imbalance. There is no way 40 is an "overshoot" or would create a large imbalance or "ripple".

Or, taking a page from Wreck's suggestion, perhaps Solomonic little of both - 18 pt 60mm, 22 point 81mm, 40 pt 3". The total blast potential per point would then by 16, 22.4, and 37.7. The lighter mortars would cost about what MGs do.

Incidentally, his point was about on-map mortars besides the 3", not about the FOs. The FOs give around 40 total blast potential per point spent, the same ballpark as the 3" mortar. The 60mm and 81mm mortars give 1/3rd and 2/5ths as much total blast per point spent as the FOs. The reason is their low ammo load.

You see, the reason people do not buy too many on-map mortars (prefering the FOs) is because their large weakness is total ammo load. It is not like the place the 3" shines in comparison, is an unimportant secondary characteristic of mortars.

Most players do use -off-map- mortars (FOs) to great effect. Most use on-map mortars beside the 3" little, just getting some useful point-suppression (guns or MGs especially) out of the 2x81mm, 3x60mm, or 3x50mm mortars indigenous to most infantry companies. When people want more mortar firepower, they generally take an FO. The Brits take 3" on-maps. The way other on-map mortars are dealt with is to let them expend their ammo, without wasting firepower on them in reply. They will take themselves out of the battle in a few minutes, by running out.

Or consider FTs. Right now, they are far less valuable than anti-tank teams. We can easily understand why. They have a shorter range, same number of men, are slower, equally limited ammo. A bazooka or schreck will more reliably take out a bunker, one of the primary historical uses of FTs, because they can do it from longer range and are more likely to live at such longer ranges. They also kill armor. The FTs burn houses or woods to deny cover. But FTs cost 61% more than Schrecks and 2.5x what zooks cost. They should probably cost more like what schrecks do, 23 points. If that seems too big a change, just move only halfway, to 30. They would probably still be overpriced at 30 each, but less so than today, and that is enough.

Or take the 1 MG halftracks. From the difference between the 2 US types, it is clear the 2nd MG is only 4 points. In fact, the extra firepower improves the usefulness considerably more than 9%. People buy 42 pt M3s, if they do, only for historical realism, never because the extra MG is worth less than 4 pts. But the German 251 costs 10 points more than the 1 MG version that Allied players avoid. Why? A longer nose handles MG fire better from the front, that is about it. The 46-pt M3A1 is the type people will actually buy today. Taking it as a base, consider the value of the firepower for a 'track as a 3rd root thing, the 1 MG M3 would cost ~36-7 points. That might still be too expensive, but an 8 point difference in price would more nearly refect the value of another MG. Then the SPW-251 would be between them, because twice the firepower is worth more than a 15mm nose (easily penetrated by 50 cals BTW), but the nose is worth something. Around 40-2 points then.

Or take the 20mm FLAK. 21 points, only 3/4 as much as an HMG team. It has more effective firepower, anti-armor ability, high ammo. It is less mobile, 2 fewer men, and a bit easier to spot once it fires. It is probably worth at least as much as the HMG despite those things. Many can attest to the gamey potential of full light FLAK battalions in their way (would it were only one). But one needn't make the 20mm FLAK cost 30-35 points, which I for one would think reasonable. One can just bump the price to 25 points, nearer to the HMG. So the price is still not perfect - it is closer to right, and that is the idea.

I have suggested changes in the infantry pricing in the past, for formulas. I did not suggest extreme measures. I recommended the price of SMGs rather than rifles (all types) be 1/4 to 1/3rd more points per weapon - roughly +2 points per pure SMG squad, +1 points to squads with numerous SMGs but not pure SMG. I also recommended a slight price increase to reflect the usefulness of improved fausts, compared to rifle grenades. Not a large one - +1 for faust-60 eligible infantry, +2 for faust-100 eligible infantry. If you can't adjusted it by date for some reason, then use the +1 throughout. That is 3-6 points per platoon, fractions of the cost of 1 bazooka team. Platoons get 4-5 capable weapons from resilent shooters. Would these changes mean that the Germans get less AT ability for the cost, or that SMG-heavy infantry types get less effective firepower potential for the cost? Hardly. But they would move the prices slightly in the proper direction, and thus reduce the existing "bargain" or cherry-picking space.

[Battlefront.com]

Jason,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now, there is obviously no such linkage in a fixed price system for a game, like CM. But there is an analogy to it. If players that are allowed to cherry pick routinely get a better won-loss record against players that don't, and do so by choosing particular items (a side, an infantry type, this tank, those guns) then that is, on its face, evidence that the prices are skew.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is 100% incorrect. Cherry Picking is not something that is related to inherent "worth" pricing. In fact, it is completely separate. Take the 3" mortar for example. That thing could be 100 points or 10 points for all it matters if you are playing using a US force. Why? Because you aren't supposed to be using it from a historical standpoint. The US forces did not have access to 3" mortars at ANY price. See the key element here?... at ANY price. So increasing the price is moot if the player shouldn't be able to buy it in the first place.

BTW, if both players used the option to restrict nationality/branch of service this particular problem can be avoided as is.

Cherry Picking can still work even with nationality/branch restrictions being used. Anyone can create an endless mix of forces that were historically never, or at least rarely, seen on the battlefield. Because of this, if the other player uses a historical mix he/she may, but not guaranteed by any stretch of the imagination, be put at a disadvantage. And this is totally reasonable. You see, each military force created for itself formations which were capable of dealing with the anticipated range of enemy forces. When a friendly force was NOT set up for this, they usually found themselves getting bested, at least in some cases. A good real life example of this was Kasserine. Cherry Pickers, basically, are attempting to create their own Kasserine each and every time they select their forces. And I find nothing wrong with that, provided that BOTH players wish to play that way.

Let's look at a possible ingame Cherry Picking example with nationality/branch restrictions in place (i.e. cutting down on the worst Cherry Picking abilities)...

A British infantry force goes into battle backed by 3" mortars, two Churchill AVRE, and a Firefly. Against it is a standard German reinforced Rifle Company. Now, if the Germans were rolled over... what would you blame for that? German player bad luck or skill? Perhaps. Allied good luck or skill? Perhaps. But assuming these were fairly evenly matched games with fairly modest luck swings. So is it the cost of the Allied units or the fact that the player was allowed too much of a free hand to select his forces? I say the force selection ability, not the points is to blame. The proof?

This force I described is PERFECTLY reasonable and historically accurate. But it was highly uncommon. So if this force were seen one game in a thousand, everything would be good and fine. Correct? So, using static pricing (like we have in CM), how would you adjust the points to make this a one in a thousand game pick, yet still possible to show up once in a blue moon? If you price the AVRE significantly higher, in order to prevent it being a common pick, then you rule out the unit as a viable option just as much in one game vs. the next. Every blue moon you don't catch a break in other words. Oh, you might get the player down to one AVRE and an armored car, but you would still see the AVRE far, far too often. Price it even higher and you would never see it, so might as well remove it from the game at that point.

And this is why we are introducing Rarity into CM2. If a player wishes to do the above Cherry Picking type game, fine. It is allowed now and will be allowed in CM2. But if the players both agree to play historically, then CM will effectively control (with some randomness for flavor) what forces each side can purchase in the first place. It doesn't matter if you have a billion points to spend, or if an AVRE is 2.5 points or 2500 points. If you are playing with Rarity on you won't see such a rare vehicle except for once in a blue moon. And when it does show up, the player will still be able to afford a reasonably accurate historical mix of support units, instead of having squandered all the points on this one vehicle. And of course, the US forces won't be able to pick one at all.

Now... reread your post and perhaps you will see that 9/10ths of your beef with the curent pricing system will be solved by Rarity and stricter formation purchasing (another feature going into CM2). In fact, the Rarity system solved pricing problems that your proposals can't fix at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Which brings me to the last way that practical life deals with matters of "mere opinion" in pricing. It searches. It adapts. It...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spare me the condescending lecture. What do you think we did to come up with the initial system we used? Do you think version 1.0 went out the door with the first thing off the top of our heads? And that we have avoiding making changes to it since release?

Might it be just a tiny bit possible that we have more thoroughly thought out the issues of pricing irregularities which allow Cherry Picking than you have? And instead of keeping our minds locked into a narrow viewpoint, lashed onto the flawed notion that there is such a thing as the ability to achieve a near perfect static pricing system (which is what you are advocating, even if you deny it), perhaps we have a fuller grasp of the problem with a greater depth of understanding than you? Hmmm? Might it JUST be possible that the people that created Combat Mission out of thin air perhaps know a thing or two about what they are doing? Or are we just pissing in the wind and don't realize yet that our pant legs are all wet?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Practically life does not regard this exercise as "meaningless" or "futile" because it is "endless" or cannot become perfect, or because it is "harder than it sounds". It tweaks until there are people who prefer side A of a trade to B, and others who prefer side B to A, and large numbers of both.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhmm... that is what we have now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have suggested changes in the infantry pricing in the past, for formulas. I did not suggest extreme measures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you see... this is pure folly. You are suggesting what amounts to a zero sum game, dog chasing tail thing. What you are proposing presumes that a) your logic is sound, that it will affect the changes you desire in the way you envision, and c) everybody will agree with your pricing. Assuming you have the first two nailed down (which I do not believe you do), you can still forget about achieving the third. It isn't going to happen. There will be another JasonC out there arguing just as passionately (but hopefully not as condescendingly) like you about how the numbers must be changed to make himself happy. Er, I mean everybody happy. You would be a fool to assume this will not happen, that there is some sort of sweet spot of price nirvana that the overwhelming majority of people will be happy with and griping will be reduced to a level not known in the history of wargaming. If there is such a spot we are probably about as close to it as anybody is going to get.

We could spend endless hours trying to get 5% more people happy, and probably making a separate group of 4% unhappy in the process. Or worse, making 6% unhappy. This is poor way to spend our resources, especially when it doesn't even scratch the surface of what is actually causing ahistorical use of weapons in games (and that is, after all, what you, Wreck, and I are all talking about here). So no, we are not going to do any fundamental changes to the existing pricing. That is final, without any room for negotiation. I rarely have to say things so bluntly, but there you have it. Your proposal is not going to fix the problem and will, without any question of a doubt in our minds, result in just as much griping and complaining as we have now. Which, by the way, is rather small percentage wise.

I also know, not assume but KNOW, that Cherry Picking will be just as much of a problem even if we implemented every single one of your tweaks. It is simply not possible to eliminate Cherry Picking in any significant way through a static pricing system. And that is why we are going to a dynamic Rarity system for CM2. Yes, we have thought about and invested more time in this issue than you can possibly imagine. We are on top of it.

Steve

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[JasonC]

No, the issue is not just about rariety. I'm glad you are going to put a rariety system into CM2, go for it, more power to that, but it is not the same issue. People who pick forces for optimal fighting ability for the cost are not getting the combat effects they get by overuse of rare vehicles. Many of the rarer vehicles are priced about right, and players avoid the obviously gamey whether it brings them too much of an edge or not.

Besides rariety, there is also a paper-scissors-rock aspect of choosing forces, which is fun and everyone is aware of, but which in the absence of price anamolies favors sides at random. It produces unbalanced single battles, exactly as it should, as a "reward" for choice of mix in a way that deal well with the enemy choice of mix. That is a head game, but it does not produce large net effects. Some dislike it and restrict it, which is fine; others enjoy it. It is not the issue involved here.

As for the story that it is all so well thought out, that is why people on ladders seriously consider bidding for the Germans, right? People pick the force or side based on the pricing of its items, as much as the items based on the force they picked. Only a consensus about that can give rise to a bid for one side. It is obvious that some bargains are available for the choice of force. Thus Brits get 17-lbers, 3" mortars, and wasps cheap, in return for the side choice. The Germans get better infantry and tanks for the cost, etc. This is obvious, everyone knows it.

[Grobdeutschland]

This is why I love CM & all the people who have helped bring it to us gamers...The guys I paid cash to so I can get this game care enough to answer our Q's & debate certain topics. This fact ALONE will make me a CMer for life! Right or Wrong, they reply to us & that's why I'll always be a customer.

BTW, I feel the game as a whole is fine. There are more then enough ways for players to "make it all fair". They just have to agree on some rules, why mess with a good thing. Everyone has made some very good points, however, I think we can all use some more "tact"...it can't hurt....

[Redwolf]

To contribute some playing experience here, I usually play Allies, U.S and British equally often and I always play with lots of mortars and formed an impression about the 81mm and 3" units.

The 3" mortar is noticable easier to knock out from enemy units that more or less accidentially stumble over them, or when the building they cover behind explodes, especially since it cannot flee as fast as the 81mm. Its lower mobility and the requirement for the whole of a halftrack is a big disadvantage. Also, while I can usually spend most of my ammo, much of the ammo is wasted when using a spotting HQ since firing doesn't stop when the target is eliminated, so the higher load of 3" mtr ammunition cannot be seen as a linear raise of blast value. In my opinion, the prices of 26 and 36 points sound right relative to each other considering the men given (and that is not an ...kissers remark).

As the teams are. But the 3 men team for the 3" mtr still doesn't sound right to me, although I re-read the whole thread carefully. I think that the universal carrier changed to be able to carry a 5-man team with a mortar (and upgrading the 3" mortar crew to 5 men with associated price raise) is the lesser stretch of history and better for gameplay.

I have to admit that I don't understand the transport ability logic fully. The 3" mortar is already class 4 with its 3 men and the 81mm is class 3 with 6 men. What is the problem of making the 3" mortar having 5 men and the same transport class (that already fits on the carrier)?

I really like the idea of "semi-mobile" mortar teams that have lots of ammo for the price and number of men and loose much of it when moving. That would make defense a little easier, but from what I have seen, people tend to assume it is harder for now than the attacker's role.

I also agree with Wreck that mortars in general might be a bit cheaper. For their usefulness can be reduced drastically by short visibilty. Ramdom weather and time can lead to less than 100m and they are very hard to use then, while guns still suffer only linear.

Extra question: does the 3" mtr in CMBO have a different shrapnell development that makes its anti-infantry capability different than the 81mm, relative to blast value?

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Wreck, for the observer I usually choose a HQ with extra combat, not extra command. A regular mortar with a normal HQ has difficulties to hit a vehicle or a gun. A veteran mortar or a 1+ command HQ raise this noticable, in my opinion one of them is required to make mortar fire effective against targets other than infantry.

To several people: having an empty mortar knocked out still has a noticeable effect on victory level, since you loose the points the unit costs and maybe even the crew. For a veteran 81mm mortar that can add up to 75-80 points if the crew is killed and even more if the crew is captured. That approches the value of a small flag.

[Redwolf]

Steve, another question on price logic: the .50cal MG team is quite expensive for the ammo load and I am assuming it is to a major part because a large number of Axis vehicles are vulnerable to it.

I wonder why the extra .50cal on the M3A1 and M5A1 halftracks compared to the M3 and M5 is very cheap. You pay 5 points to upgrade the halftrack to whatever the advantages of a .50cal team over a -say- Vickers team are. I guess you make a .50cal on a vehicle quite cheap because otherwise all other vehicles that carry the .50cal would suffer an unfair price raise.

Assuming I am correct, I would propose the following partial solutions:

- for M3A1 and M5A1, seperate the ammo load of the hull MG and the .50cal, like it is already done for other vehicles

- if you do, add a "use main" gun command to vehicles that have two different MGs but no main gun, while you are at it, otherwise the

.50cal use must be controlled by buttoning

- whatever the price of an extra .50cal on a vehicles is, the price should be higher when the .50cal will make the best weapon on the

vehicle, while it should be lower if the vehicle has a main gun and hence is a threat to Axis thin armour anyway

- that would make a price raise for Jeep MG and T8 Recon, but given their anti-armour capability I think that is OK. It can also be balanced out with the ammo load and associated pricing

I have to say that I don't care about pricing that much as others obviously do. Why I question the .50cal price on vehicles nontheless is that the battlefield gets extremly shaped with regards to possible movement of Axis halftracks. That is histrically right, but the Allied player should have to pay for this effect. They pay right when buying M2 teams, but they don't pay right when they shape the battlefield by upgrading harmless vehicles.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

I agree with Redwolf about the halftracks. The way it is now, the M3A1 is worth about 100 pts but only costs 46. The reason is that it gets 250 ammo, half of which will be fired from the .50 cal. That's 125 .50 cal ammo. To get that much firepower from .50 cal HMG teams you would have to buy 3 of them (40 ammo each) at a price of 78 pts. Add in the halftrack's .30 cal MG (125 ammo), mobility, armor, and transport ability and you have a 100 pt unit (roughly). Seperating the .50 and .30 cal ammo would solve this, unless it really did have that much .50 cal ammo, in which case it should be priced much higher.

Compair this to a German 251/1 halftrack (52 pts, 6 more than the M3A1) that has a single MG34 MG with 57 ammo. This is less firepower than a single MG42 HMG team (95 ammo) which costs 28 pts. Sure the 251/1 has a few small advantages, such as smaller silhouette and slightly better armor and faster speed, but none of these even comes close to making up for the M3A1s' huge firepower advantage (IMO, does anyone disagree?) This one seems like a slam dunk to me. Even if you think 100 pts is too much for the M3A1, does anyone actually think it is a less capable all around unit than the German 251/1 (as its pricing suggests)?

For the record, I agree with Jason that SMGs should be worth a bit more than rifles, since in my experience the large majority (maybe 80%) of infantry squad vs. infantry squad firefights take place at 100m or less. I conceed that this is debatable, and other's experience may vary depending on how you use infantry, but it seems to me that if you engage other infantry (in cover) in firefights at much over 150m or so, by the time you get them worn down you are almost out of ammo. So most players charge their SMG infantry in and do it close range where it's over in a turn or 2. Of course SMG squads will be less effective in CM2 even without price changes since changes in the movement model will make charging over open ground more realisticly dangerous and difficult.

Just my 2 cents. Not meant as a flame. I just think on the whole the pricing system works pretty well, but discussing possible holes in it is constructive.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Wreck]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

for the observer I usually choose a HQ with extra combat, not extra command. A regular mortar with a normal HQ has difficulties to hit a vehicle or a gun. A veteran mortar or a 1+ command HQ raise this noticable, in my opinion one of them is required to make mortar fire effective against targets other than infantry.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At some point I plan to test this. With the 76mm you have the ammo for targets other than guns. With 81mm you don't, IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

To several people: having an empty mortar knocked out still has a noticeable effect on victory level, since you loose the points the unit costs and maybe even the crew. For a veteran 81mm mortar that can add up to 75-80 points if the crew is killed and even more if the crew is captured. That approches the value of a small flag.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What? 80 points no way. A vet 81mm costs 33 points. That's the most you risk, barring capture, and even then it is 66. Yes, it is worth going for any unit if you can do so cheaply.

However, unless your opponent is playing badly, it is usually hard to kill his mortars before they fire (76mm excluded) since they have so little ammo. After they fire your arty is best spent elsewhere. And after they are out of ammo, they should move back to the rear and be prepared to exit, to avoid any raids into the rear by the enemy.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wreck:

At some point I plan to test this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did. Mortar experience and HQ combat value (not experience) add up lineary to the fall radius of the shells. Regular without help has a hard time to directly hit a vehicle or a gun, but pushing even one of the factors by one is a big help.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

What? 80 points no way. A vet 81mm costs 33 points. That's the most you risk, barring capture, and even then it is 66. Yes, it is worth going for any unit if you can do so cheaply. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't notice that I was referring to killed members of the crew after the mortar is knocked out.

A crew member regular is worth 5 points or so if killed. Make veteran one or two more, multiply by 6 (men in 81mm team) and you see that killing the crew is about the same as knocking out the mortar.

[My understanding is limited, though. The 5 point number is from a tank crew member, didn't test for a mortar crew (Steve, are all crew members worth the same?). And some mechanism will (hopefully) ensure that capturing the mortar intact is worth more than knocking it out and then capturing the crew.]

But the numbers are most likely in the right ballpark. If your mortar gets knocked out, you can about double the damage to your victory level by mishandling the crew.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

However, unless your opponent is playing badly, it is usually hard to kill his mortars before they fire (76mm excluded) since they have so little ammo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For victory points it is irrelevant how much ammo the unit has left.

Of course, if you have the choice you should go after a unit that is still capable of fighting. That way you get two positive effects, points for the knockout and reduced combat value of the opponent force. But -and that is the only point I made- victorypoint wise the empty mortar brings as much points as the fresh one.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And after they are out of ammo, they should move back to the rear and be prepared to exit, to avoid any raids into the rear by the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. But you underestimate *how* important that is (and still is to do with the crew after the mortar is knocked out).

And hence how much potential damage to your victory level the slowness of the 3" mtr causes. The fact that they cannot flee from the battlefield unless circumstances are very fortunate or you invest time of a vehicle (with transport class 4!) is one of the factors why I think the 3" mortar is not badly underpriced.

Imagine an on-map battery of mortars, two or three mortars and a Company HQ. Killing it including the crew brings about as much victory points as a small flag. And hence the immobility of the 3" mortar is a big disadvantage, because it needs a bodyguard or transport near it. And one halftrack can carry both 81mm mortars, but doesn't cut it for two 3" mortars.

I hope that illustrates why I am not that concerned about the 3"mtr price as it is. But as I said, I think an overwhelming part of the CM community would be more happy if it gets 5 men and its price is raised by 10 points, accepting the reality stretch for the universal carrier.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Username]

I havent read through all the posts here (cause they are long and whiney) but am going to use this opportunity to reiterate my great ideas.

Great idea 1

Rarity as a cost multiplier.

Purchasing the first of a type of rare vehicle/gun is reflected in the initial purchase cost (ie puma costs you (i dunno) 150 pts). The next puma costs you 250 pts. (But see great idea number 2).

Great idea number 2

You can define platoon types.

So instead of just buying a rare vehicle to use in a solitary role; you buy into a platoon type. Example: declare a armored recon platoon as your type. Normal puma costs are slightly lower but you must fill out the platoon type with proper vehicles. Want to put a panther (normal cost (i dunno) 200 points?) in the recon platoon?, well he costs 250 points in this unorthodox role. Want to go cheap on the platoon roster? Buy kubelwagons to make up the minimum number of vehicles (lets say six). If the game you are playing is a 1500 point quickie, these rare vehicles/platoons won't show up as much me thinks.

Great idea numero 3

Vehicle platoons should have some kind of global "command control" that is reflected in the state of the platoon. This control should restrict movement/orders somehow based on losses and especially command vehicle state. This will certainly offset the omni-aware player and his telepathic communications amongst his troops. Perhaps BTS is doing something along these lines for the russian tank platoons.

I envision the following during the orders phase:

Click on a platoon leader vehicle. All of the vehicles under his command "light up". If they are in C&C, then he can give them a number of orders (from a "command total" that is determined by the platoon leaders morale, suppression, radio contact, losses in the platoon, distance from leader, etc). The ones completely out of C&C can only be given "follow me" (where the TACAI decides his moves), or defend , where he stays put (the vehicles can always be given WITHDRAW commands also to reflect individual vehicle control. This would be just like the infantry withdraw command).

Gone are the days of the infinite number of orders given to individual vehicles (one of my gamiest favorites is the "back and forth" for vehicles. This way, I am only seconds away from escaping or advancing).

Gone also is the "jumping around" your command, constantly refining orders for vehicles and men that have no way of coordinating in reality. You choose a platoon and direct it. Thats it. I dont want to hear the whining from the people here that enjoy their unrealistic playtime.

Also, the "Command Total" is dynamic! So you tell a jeep to run itself up a road and its proposed movement goes by a hidden german squads ambush (which you dont get to see, you are only aware that your "dynamically changing Command Total" has been whittled down excessively and that the last unit you moved (the jeep) is in some sort of danger). This faux paus normally costs you 2.5 times the Command Total points (and locks this move down so it cant be taken back). Luckily, he is a jeep from a recon platoon and this decreases the "hit" to only 1.8 times normal Command Total points (they are used to this stuff). So a jeep aint just a jeep anymore boys and gurls. The recon platoon leader has to make a decision to either reinforce this mistake (IF he has any "Command points" left!), or to just take the loss. What will he do? WHAT WILL HE DO????

OK. So its all options for the real wargamers then.. I can hear the whiney weenies already..

But I also hear the mechanical whirrings of other designer-wannabees brains and would like to hear from them.

Steve is allowed to throw a hissy fit as always..

Lewis

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

I hope that illustrates why I am not that concerned about the 3"mtr price as it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a less talked about flaw concerning the point values of weapons and vehicles. The general point value system does little to compensate or bolster due to mobility. A mobile version of a weapon generally costs less than the non-mobile equivalent.

Let met site examples to display my point.

German 37mm AA

37mm FlaK- 52 (less mobile)

Sd Kfz 7/2- 48 (fully mobile)

German quad 20mm AA

20mm Quad Flak- 48 (less mobile)

Sd Kfz 7/1- 46 (fully mobile)

German 88mm

88 Pak- 114-118

Nashorn- 109 (no mgs)

British 17lber

17 lber ATG- 96 points

Archer- 99 points (no mgs).

This is a sample to show the trend concerning little or no comparable point value is assigned to mobility. Although the point value comparison is across vehicle, support, and armor categories the overall reflectiveness generates the observation that; Mobility plays no factor whence determining the effectiveness of said unit. And this, is not in aggreement with most notable strategies. Mobility is the paramount principle in all armed conflicts. In CM mobility is attained for no-cost.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

[Redwolf]

You are comparing vehicles and non-vehicles. That doesn't allow conclusions for more or less mobile infantry units.

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

You are comparing vehicles and non-vehicles. That doesn't allow conclusions for more or less mobile infantry units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The principle mobility distinction between vehicles and various infantry units is apropos. Abstractly, the point values do not reflect mobility as a viable issue. The point values of units tend to incorporate their effectiveness, with little or no weight given to extremely slow assets.

The 75mm Inf Gun and 3" Mortar move at the same speed across open terrain. Yet how does CM point value reflect individual effectiveness? By assigning values to ROF and Blast rating. Although the 75mm Inf Gun HE round has a higher blast value, the ROF of the 3" is much greater thus we get the point values being 3 points apart from one another.

There are many values in CM which are not reflected in the point values.

For example: June 44 German rifle platoons with Faust-30's are 105 points. May 45 German Rifle platoons are 108 points, with approximately 20% more firepower at closer range and Faust-100's. Each platoon utilizes 9 men squads.

They both have the same mobility, yet indicatively the measly difference of 3 point generates 20% more firepower and better AT capabilities.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]

[Battlefront.com]

OK, I'll take some quick stabs at the things people have asked about here...

Jason,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for the story that it is all so well thought out, that is why people on ladders seriously consider bidding for the Germans, right? People pick the force or side based on the pricing of its items, as much as the items based on the force they picked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with this 100 and 10%. I don't think anybody, except perhaps you?, sits down with a calculator and thinks... "gee, I'm going to pick the Germans because I can get better bargains here, here and here". No, the Germans are bid up because if you polled any wargame community as to which side they would like to play most the answer will almost certainly come back "The Germans, of course". This is part of a deep rooted pro-German bias that has been in wargaming since the beginning of the hobby (it also exists in historical study too, BTW). More than anything Germans have the "sexy" and the "cool" AFVs to choose from. Even though I don't favor picking the Germans myself, I more than agree that the Germans have the better looking, named, and (for the most part) capable equipment to choose from. As a one time military modeler I can count he number of Allied vehicles I made on one hand, yet German stuff is all over my office.

In short, you are not making a sensible argument to me. On the one hand you are saying that the motivation for changing prices is not to affect purchasing changes, but if that isn't the desired end result then what is the point of tweaking prices at all? You are trying to say, if I have it correct, that because SMG units are underpriced by one or two points each (in your mind), people want to play the Germans more than the Allies. And if we just increased their price a point or two, all of this would go away. Sorry, I don't buy it. And if this isn't what you are saying, then what is the goal you feel that we are missing the mark on?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Germans get better infantry and tanks for the cost, etc. This is obvious, everyone knows it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, the big issue is Rarity. It isn't that the prices for German stuff are wildly underpriced, but because they had inherently better stuff (for the most part). The problem was that they never had ENOUGH of it. So yes, that Panther is better than a Sherman 75 when they go head to head (all things being equal), but in Normandy the chances were that the Panther was not on the battlefield at all when a Sherman 75 rolled into combat.

The issue is not that a German vehicle is 3 points under or over priced, but whether the player should be allowed a totally free hand to purchase it at any price. The problems with vehicle choices, in particular, is that Rarity is not factored in. A Puma is correctly priced for its abilities and in relation to other AFVs, but it is still damned cheap. It is also "sexy" and a deadly little armored car. So any German player can pretty much opt to pick this vehicle whenever they feel like it. We already increased the price on this bugger once, and it has made no difference in purchasing decisions from what we gather. We could tweak unit prices every day for the next year and the effect on game purchasing decisions would not appreciably change unless we DRASTICALLY over priced things to the point that they were never purchased. Rarity, and only Rarity, will take care of this. Until you understand that this is the core issue, you will never understand what the basic problem is for folks who wish to play historically realistic games on the fly without Gentleman's Rules.

Redwolf, in regards to increasing the size of the 3" mortar team, you do have a valid argument to consider. Fortunately, when we rewrite CM's game engine (after CM2) we will be reworking things so we can have much more flexibility for this sort of oddball situation. BTW, Maple Leaf Up is a great bunch of guys. Glad to see you support them with a link.

IIRC the value of a unit in victory terms is based on its price, and only its price. So there is no 'per man' value. That means if you lose 2 out of your 3 mortar men, 2/3rds of the purchase price of that unit go against your victory total. The one exception to this are vehicle/gun crews. In order to discourage and punish "gamey" crew usage, we tacked on extra value to bailed out crews. I forget how it works, exactly, but when you lose the vehicle/gun you take a big hit right there, and then more for each crew member which is eliminated/captured. I am not sure mortars are included in this, but you know... I suspect they might be.

Lewis, my new pledge is to not address any of your posts until you remove your sigline. You made an equally blatant factual mistake, complete with abusive remarks, in that thread (about the % cover, if you didn't know) and yet you didn't have the guts to admit that you were wrong. As usual, you just hurled insults at me and then removed yourself from the discussion when it was clear you were on the losing end of things. On the other hand, on my own I apologized for the quote you have since adopted (even knowing you probably would be childish enough to use it as a sig line). You are a coward as well as a bully, and my patience for you has ended. So until you do something worthy of banishment, I am pretty much going to ignore you from now on. Shame, since you do have some good ideas floating around in that warped mind of yours.

FFE,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A mobile version of a weapon generally costs less than the non-mobile equivalent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. Mobility is factored in, but it is not so high that it can (by itself) compensate for other problems. There are two major reasons behind this. The first is that survivability is generally much lower compared to the non-vehicle version and other armored vehicles using the same gun. Survivability is a significant factor for vehicles, BTW. Second, each category of units has to be in harmony with each other as much, or perhaps even more, than being in harmony with units in other categories.

You used a 88 example, but you picked arguably one of the worst AFV the Germans have and matched it against the best of the AT guns. That right there makes the comparison a little unfair. Picking two units like this is not helpful. Instead, you have to look at the larger context. Just looking at 88 capable units gives you some idea, not to mention comparing to non 88s in context as well...

Pak43 - 118

Nashorn -109

Jagdpanther - 198

King Tiger - 286

Flak36 -85

Tiger - 177

The first four have the same 88 gun, the last two the earlier version. Effectively, from an Allied armor standpoint, the two guns are identical (i.e. equally as deadly) for the most part. So in terms of lethality, they are all pretty much on an even footing.

Now, which are the three most vulnerable units (in order) from the above list? The Nashorn and the Flak36, with the Pak43 next in line because it has a better silhouette. Which are the cheapest? The same three. Which are the three most well protected? The Jagdpanther and King Tiger with the Tiger in third. The King Tiger is almost three times as expensive as the Pak43 and slightly more than three times as expensive as the Flak36. Yet given an ambush situation, all of these units is just as capable of killing (almost) any Allied vehicle. Right?

What would happen if the Nashorn (which lacks a MG, not to mention two) were priced up a bit more for mobility? Oh, say to 140 points. Well, that only puts it 37 points away from a Tiger, which is obviously a much better vehicle in every way. OK, so let's increase the Tiger to 210 points. Hmmm... well, now it is more expensive than the Jagdpanther, which is in many ways superior to the Tiger. Better crank that one up to 240 to keep the range about the same. Hmmm... now the King Tiger is too close to the Jagdpanther, so bump that one up to 330 points or so. But wait a sec! Now what about the prices for all the other vehicles and guns? I mean, a Tiger is now more expensive than a Panther, which doesn't make any sense. OK, so let's increase the price of the Panther. OK, but now the Jagdpanzer IV is priced too cheaply, guess we are going to have to raise that up too. And so on and so on and so on. Now all the vehicles are priced so much higher that we have to allow the player to use more points in the Vehicles column, leaving less to spend elsewhere. Now that doesn't seem fair. OK, so people will just use more points for their games. Well, now that Pak40 can be purchased in larger quantities. Better price that higher. Ooops! Now it is as much as a Flak36, so let's increase that price. Hmmm... now that is as expensive as the Pak43, so we gotta bump that up. BUT WAIT A SEC!!!! Now it is priced too high compared to the Nashorn. So lets bump that up a bit. Now, go back to the top of this paragraph and continue to read until you pass out

This is why figuring out prices is so hard. The value of a unit can not be easily calculated into a single number. On the one hand a Pak43 is a superior weapon to the Nashorn, but in another way it is inferior. But which of these factors matters more? Depends on the circumstances of the battle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Mobility is the paramount principle in all armed conflicts.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is arguable. I would say survivability and lethality are right up there with mobility. Otherwise, if mobility were the single biggest factor the Panzer II Lynx would be worth more than a Tiger

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Abstractly, the point values do not reflect mobility as a viable issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It does as much as it should, in our opinion. The Nashorn and Archer are mobile, yes, but they suck as AFVs compared to things like the Jagdpanzer. Also, a well emplaced AT gun is in many ways superior to either of these vehicles, even if the gun is the same. And that is one reason why AT guns were so effective, even though though they needed motorized transport to get into position. I mean, if mobility were such an overriding concern, why not take the truck that towed the AT gun and make it a firing platform instead? Since this did not happen, there must have been some benefits of the AT gun as a non-motorized weapon. Low profile and the ability to remain quiet (i.e. no engine) are two such benefits.

Steve

[Username]

Seen my new sig? I am insulted that you took off your sig Steve..

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: Username ]

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The Nashorn and Archer are mobile, yes, but they suck as AFVs compared to things like the Jagdpanzer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My examples sighted an infantry version of a weapon vs. an equivalent armored carrier, without MG's and generally low armor values. The rationale set into place a comparison of what I construe to be an oddity. The effectiveness of these units vary based on variables within the tactical situation (i.e. Terrain, Weather, Coverage, etc...) The mobility doctrine doesn't imply a single units mobility over another, rather it's the gamut of the tactical situation.

Let in-game mechanics usher my paradigm of mobility. Here's the situation:

An unbuttoned Churchill VIII spots a Nashorn in clear terrain through sparse woods. As pointed out the silhouette of the Nashorn makes it as visible as a one story building. The Churchill VIII lowers its gun, takes aim, then the Nashorn becomes a Nationality Symbol. The Churchill VIII proceeds to find something else to shoot at several seconds later. One second after the Churchill VIII opens fire at some moving infantry, the STATIONARY Nashorn targets and proceeds to eradicate my Churchill VIII.

Fluke? No, a worse situation occurred two turns later.

The Situation: A Stuart and Churchill VII (75mm version) are hunting up a road towards the suspect Nashorn, which is under scrutiny by over 100 infantrymen. My armor column stops almost simultaneously, lowers their guns, takes aim, and the Nashorn becomes a Nationality Symbol. My armor proceed to hunt forward along the road, then, without "Seeing" the Nashorn pivot 90 degrees, the Nashorn suddenly appears and fires off a round at the Churchill VII immobilizing it. My pair of Nashorn hunters lower their guns, take aim and successfully dispatch the Nashorn, which plagued my armor from 200(!) meters behind sparse woods.

Those accounts bifurcates your assentation of points vs. effectiveness. The Nashorn, which according to the point values and your description, should be less(?) survivable. Yet its in-game performances clearly displayed a superiority. Why? If the Nashorn was substituted out for an 88 AT gun, my options would have been greatly augmented. Simply put, the damn Nashorn can move and it can Hide given sufficient variables. Not only can it Hide, but it can later maneuver. One can argue that in-game mechanics of armor vs armor, the attacking armor will use AP or Hollow rounds whence a simple HE round will suffice. The survivability of an 88 ATG is minimal once detected. The culmination of variables (smoke, artillery, mortars, indirect firing via target command) will not assist the ATG in survival. Whereas the Nashorn, given a tactical terrain coverage can and will negate the aggressors options given the truth, the Nashorn can move. The mobility aspect of the Nashorn permits it greater flexibility, inclusive hunt command utilization.

This propagates point value inflation, as you pointed out. But where should the inflationary point boundaries be drawn? Mobility augments point values, it shouldn't lessen them! The Archer with its vast quirkiness ought not to be more "valuable" than its counter part 17 lber if we are to use your effectiveness ideal. Yet the Archer does indeed "cost" more therefore is more "effective" than the ATG?

Variables ultimately sway the points vs. effectiveness debate. Players should be assumed to use sensibility to orchestrate units to their utmost benefit. In the case of non-mobile assets, players are glued to a specific location for the duration. And given the non-mobile asset is, thus rooted in place, a target of opportunity may never present itself. Whereas a mobile asset can, given proper sensible maneuvering, might engaged the target.

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis,

OK, a deal's a deal

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Great idea 1

Rarity as a cost multiplier.

Purchasing the first of a type of rare vehicle/gun is reflected in the initial purchase cost (ie puma costs you (i dunno) 150 pts). The next puma costs you 250 pts. (But see great idea number 2).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This has one problem. And that is a person can always buy at least one Puma. We want to come up with a system that eliminates the possibility, for the most part, of someone doing even that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Great idea number 2

You can define platoon types.

So instead of just buying a rare vehicle to use in a solitary role; you buy into a platoon type.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is part of the solution, and is in fact already coded up. It has a nice side benefit of yielding real Order of Battle designations, like 1st Squad, 2nd Platoon, B Company instead of "B1" like in CM1. However, this is basically not a solution in and of itself.

The Rarity system (which has largely been coded up already) looks at the total number of that unit that saw combat (this includes infantry formations, BTW) and figures out how many of that would be available in a particular month/year. This is not a straight average, but a weighted curve depending on (roughly) how the introduction cycle went. For example, one vehicle might have been introduced in tiny numbers for the first 4 months of production, then a lot in the middle, and then cold turkey stopped on x date. For another vehicle it could have been fairly level for the whole time. We also have a way to determine (roughly) how many of a particular unit would still be in service after it was officially removed.

People can play with this option Off (so like it is in CM1), On with random variations in prices (makes more rare vehicles sometimes be fairly inexpensive), or On without random variations.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Great idea numero 3

Vehicle platoons should have some kind of global "command control" that is reflected in the state of the platoon. This control should restrict movement/orders somehow based on losses and especially command vehicle state. This will certainly offset the omni-aware player and his telepathic communications amongst his troops. Perhaps BTS is doing something along these lines for the russian tank platoons.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is sorta a feature onto itself. Command and Control rules are getting a complete rewrite. However, we are not doing it along the lines you suggested as such. There is a small element that is similar, in that poorer quality units will have more limited abilities to use waypoints than better units. So the standard crappy C&C 1941 Soviet tank platoon is basically going to either be doing very unsubtle maneuvers or sitting still, with little inbetween. And once the platoon HQ is knocked out... well, we anticipate very dire consequences

The C&C rewrite is multi-faceted. It includes the above, some restrictions on order usage, more dynamic treatment of C&C delay penalties, and probably a few other things I am not thinking of right now.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

FFE,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Those accounts bifurcates your assentation of points vs. effectiveness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, because you picked the examples that supported your side of the argument Here are two different ones:

A Nashorn is moving into position to take on some Churchills. They spot it on the move, aim, and move out of harms way without the Nashorn knowing this. An artillery barrage is called down on the location and the Nashorn is eliminated. Mobility doesn't account for anything here.

Same exact situation but with a Pak43 instead of the Nashorn. It is harder to spot, even than a non moving Nashorn, so the Churchill's don't see it. They move into the killing ground and the AT gun opens up. It kills two Churchills before they even spot it. Remainders back up and get out of the death zone. Artillery is called down on the suspected position, but the AT gun is more likely to survive the bombardment than the Nashorn (all things being equal).

Another situation... the Nashorn is lying in wait, cracks off a shot and is almost imediately eliminated by a .50 cal gun that was in overwatch position. Switch in the Pak43 and that .50cal would have a much harder time doing the same thing.

I am not saying that mobility is unimportant. It is. And it is already factored in, otherwise the Pak43 would probably be even more expensive. Plus, everything else I said about balancing things between classes of units still applies. Inflating the price of vehicles has a knock on effect for the value of all other units in the game.

Again, you have a point. But personally, I don't think you are looking at the big picture enough. So although I am not saying that you are wrong, I am also not saying that you are right either. We feel that the system we have now works just fine as is, even if a few individual prices are valid subject for debate. Therefore, do not expect to see a difference in the methodology for pricing in CM2. It works just fine as is for the reasons I have stated, even if on the surface you can make a case for it not making sense.

Steve

[Guest PondScum]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

So the standard crappy C&C 1941 Soviet tank platoon is basically going to either be doing very unsubtle maneuvers or sitting still, with little inbetween. And once the platoon HQ is knocked out... well, we anticipate very dire consequences <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh my, CMBB is going to be fun.

"Driver - charge!"

[FFE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

FFE,

Sure, because you picked the examples that supported your side of the argument Here are two different ones:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used the smallest denominator. Implementing Tigers and their ilk doesn't amply reward a simple comparison. Heavily armored tanks are more survivable. That is undisputable. Vehicles with Mgs start a dual role purpose, which is outside my focus.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>A Nashorn is moving into position to take on some Churchills. They spot it on the move, aim, and move out of harms way without the Nashorn knowing this. An artillery barrage is called down on the location and the Nashorn is eliminated. Mobility doesn't account for anything here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sensibility is necessary. Yet given the situation, the player using artillery might not know if the Nashorn received a KO. Worse case the Nashorn might be unaffected and the threat remains. A more serious tactical view: The Nashorn location still poses a threat since the artillery effect is unknown.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Same exact situation but with a Pak43 instead of the Nashorn. It is harder to spot, even than a non moving Nashorn, so the Churchill's don't see it. They move into the killing ground and the AT gun opens up. It kills two Churchills before they even spot it. Remainders back up and get out of the death zone. Artillery is called down on the suspected position, but the AT gun is more likely to survive the bombardment than the Nashorn (all things being equal).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Too many variables are encompassed. A Pak43 will shine as a nova when it fires. A Gun(?) identity might be forthcoming. Tactical situation permitting and almost assuredly the Pak43 will be encased in foliage. Given this tactical situation, a player can neutralize a specific point with smoke or mortars or direct fire nearby or many other reasonable options. A Nashorn can vacate thus posing a serious tactical advantage comparison.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Another situation... the Nashorn is lying in wait, cracks off a shot and is almost immediately eliminated by a .50 cal gun that was in overwatch position. Switch in the Pak43 and that .50cal would have a much harder time doing the same thing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Variables and more variables. If the Nashorn is within range of a .50cal that can KO it, then there's a reasonability the .50 cal will Pin the Pak43. Localized mortars might fire smoke. Guns(?) draw fire like a magnet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am not saying that mobility is unimportant. It is. And it is already factored in, otherwise the Pak43 would probably be even more expensive. Plus, everything else I said about balancing things between classes of units still applies. Inflating the price of vehicles has a knock on effect for the value of all other units in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm agree to the point; far too many variables exist to nail down one specific value for any given unit. Points are abstract, this I can live with. Functionality and limits placed on groupings (Support, Armor, Infantry, Fortifications, Vehicles) constrain many options as certainly as the type of battle (Combined Arms, etc...) places another invisible barrier on the field. I've enjoyed this game for a very long time and by no means wish to diminish the efforts placed into it.

Before I cease this pleasant exchange of words, I would like to advocate: Vehicle/Armor A/I Survivability Code ought to reflected in the point values. Weaker vehicles tend to dislodge themselves when facing a superior. Automated survival bolsters the effectiveness of many units, such as Sd Kfz's, Nashorns, M-10s, and others.

[ 05-12-2001: Message edited by: FFE ]